|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - f8
76
« on: September 14, 2022, 18:06 »
I have been having lots of rejections recently of editorial images. I thought nothing of it and have kept shooting other commerical subjects that get accepted. This week I have been in London covering the tributes to Queen Elizabeth in Green Park and Buckingham Palace. These are current news editorial images, yet the whole batch have been rejected for not meeting editorial guidelines. I really cannot work out why these would be rejected.
Anyone got any ideas? have Adobe changed their editorial policy? or know how to contact Mat Hayward to understand a bit more.
Thanks
Nothing has changed regarding our policy of editorial submissions. While these files you've posted about do not have recognizable people in them, they still do not quality as "illustrative editorial" which is all we are currently accepting. Please review the learn and support pages for specific guidelines on what is and what is not acceptable. https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/illustrative-editorial-content.html
thank you,
Mat Hayward
Mat, first of all, thank you for kneeling in here like this and facing the criticism  . Although we are hairstyle twins, now a little criticism of your statement.
Quite a few people here describe problems with the definition of "illustrative editorial" and you only refer to all well known Adobe guidelines, which obviously have a lot of room for interpretation.
Last week I submitted about 50 city views of Cologne as editorial, all rejected in the first round. On the second try, about 30 were accepted. Mat, this sucks and maybe you could address this issue and take it seriously. This is very much in need of improvement.
The Illustrative Editorial collection is designed to be showcasing specific, branded content. A soda bottle in ice with condensation dripping down the bottle comes to mind. While there is some gray area here for sure, what it sounds to me is that you are attempting to submit travel editorial content which if the true intent of the collection were considered, is not acceptable. The content in the OP here is newsworthy and based on a current event, not on a specific brand.
I hope that helps,
Mat Hayward
Mat, I think I've got the general idea - but I don't think your reviewers have.
A close-up of German brand beer goes through, no question.
A front view of a Vodafone store with a clearly visible logo is rejected. Modern protected architecture is usually accepted.
Your presentation here contradicts many experiences of others here in the forum. I can't quite understand why you are fighting this criticism tooth and nail.
... Mat, thanks for chiming in on this. There are now two threads on sudden bizarre rejections and you have maintained that nothing has changed. I don't think in all my years on this forum that a 'review' thread on AS has even appeared, and in the last few months 2-3 have appeared. That should be a clue. I am getting very wonky results in both illustrative editorial and the regular collection. I have had entire batches 100% rejected for "quality standards" and on the second go they all get accepted. I don't re-submit to the illustrative editorial the second time as there is a gray area so I let it be, but with the regular collection something is acting up over on the review side of things. My most common rejection is "quality standards" and most if not all these images are accepted at a handful of other agencies. As mentioned in an earlier post, this has only been happening for the last few months and it is a stand out anomaly from AS. Right about the time these rejection threads started on this forum. Coincidence? I can tell you it is incredibly frustrating and a waste of my time and the reviewers who are making some pretty bad call as of late.
77
« on: September 14, 2022, 10:12 »
"hit and miss" the new review style at AS.
78
« on: September 13, 2022, 17:12 »
I think there is something bizarre going on in the review department of AS. I too am having entire batches of content rejected for not being editorial even though they fit the criteria. Some skyline shots with lots of logos for example. In one batch 50% got rejected for not meeting the guidelines yet 50% got accepted. Go figure. It really makes no sense at all.
The rejections over on the commercial side are as wonky as well.
79
« on: September 13, 2022, 11:28 »
I've never been able to embed metadata in PNGs in PS and don't use LR. Maybe some day.
You embed metadate in PNGs in PS the same way you do it for jpgs.
Open your png, click on File -> File info, fill out the form that pops up with yout metadata and then go to File -> Save as copy and select png in the drop down menu below the name field. Do not use the export feature to save the image, that will remove the metadata.
Maybe it is a version issue. All of my PNGs are made from JPEGs that already have the metadata included. When I save them as PNGs the metadata does not get included. Canva used to let you upload the JPEG versions so they could extract the metadata - that was a nice way to do it. I am still using PS4 so maybe that was changed in later versions.
My feeling is there is a "quality issue" with the reviewer. Again, my entire batch was rejected for quality and the exact same images were all accepted at multiple other agencies. This anomaly is only somewhat recent in the last 4-6 batch submissions. For now I will hit the brakes on submitting anything to AS.
80
« on: September 09, 2022, 10:33 »
When you say "sales for the ones they appropriated completely dried up"
...As for the Adobe $5 per 1 year offer, what exactly is that about? ...Does Adobe have another licensing deal going where they offer you a flat $5 per image to sell that image for 1 year?
1. The images Getty took and gave away some years ago stopped selling on other sites, don't know if that was just my experience.
2. Adobe offered $5 per image to let them add it to their free collection for one year. They let you choose which to offer from a selection. Not my cup of tea, but they did it in a much more contributor friendly way, and for more money.
both are shameless and predatory. you are shooting yourself in the foot with these deals.
81
« on: September 08, 2022, 13:38 »
Sorry to be harsh but the quality from micros has gone from mediocre to garbage The only ones that supply to micros nowadays are bad photographers that do not find any demand of their images from no clients and amateurs that they really don't care if they make a few hundred or a few thousand a year
But as a pro endeavor any field in pro photography is much much more lucrative than stock photography or video. It is what it is.
I think it was the transition from editors at traditional stock agencies to inspectors at micro agencies that created this. Once upon a time a 10% acceptance rate after an editor or editors went through your work was considered good. Now if you get a few images rejected by an inspector it becomes a complete forum whine festival. The result is there is so much content to the point of saturation death and you get a lot of great work mixed with a lot of junk work. That said, I am old school, and I recently took a shot with really horrible side light, nothing to be proud of in any way. Fifteen years ago I would have never even considered taking that crap shot, today I will take that crap shot and upload it. It has become one of my top sellers on SS. Each and every time it sells I scratch my head. The old days are gone for sure, and the new days don't look promising at all, but what I do know is I will soldier on and be very thankful my career is behind me.
82
« on: September 07, 2022, 14:35 »
Just had a couple of rejections for photos that had been accepted by the - allegedly - stricter Shutterstock. Quality Issues was the reason given. I'm not going to bother resubmitting. Hopefully they will sell over at SS.
I had on batch 100% rejected on AS and 100% accepted in multiple other agencies. I resubmitted the same images again and 100% accepted. That has happened to me twice now. Interesting enough my poor quality images that got rejected then accepted have sold multiple times since being uploaded. Not sure what is going on but it is a lot like spinning the roulette wheel these days at AS.
83
« on: September 05, 2022, 09:52 »
I will presume most agencies will reject old editorial images as there is more often than not a short shelf life.
Unless your content has some sort of archival value I do think you are wasting your time.
84
« on: September 03, 2022, 12:56 »
The rejections at AS for photos is getting a bit ridiculous.
The same photos are accepted every other agency but not on AS. I am not clear what is going on but this is a completely new trend at AS. My entire last batch was rejected for "quality standards" which is very odd considering I use a high end camera with the best glass and always on a tripod.
I have resubmitted some of these again and they all get accepted and sell.
The reality is having to resubmit is a waste of time for everyone as we are all doing twice the work. I can understand being rejected for 'too similar' I can understand 'not meeting editorial guidelines' but this 'quality standards' is just wrong on every level.
85
« on: August 30, 2022, 12:47 »
There is nothing to be proud about if you give your work away for free.
Or for $5
86
« on: August 19, 2022, 15:01 »
Hi everyone,
This thread has triggered a deeper look into rejection rates by our team. During this process we identified an issue that may be impacting some of you. There was a recent update that impacts how thumbnails are generated. The thumbs are now dependent on the art board size. Those of you setting your art board too small (below 1000 pixels) are likely seeing rejections on content that is similar in quality to what you had previously had approved.
To avoid this while were working on a fix, please set your art boards at >1000px, ideally ~10MP area.
For those of you that took me up on my offer and sent some example image ID numbers, thank you very much. This information was very helpful. In future posts, if you are comfortable sharing, please be sure to include image ID numbers.
thanks again,
Mat Hayward
Quick question... How does one get to artboards to change the setting? Until now I have never heard of art boards.
87
« on: August 16, 2022, 10:20 »
No Thanks.
88
« on: August 09, 2022, 14:37 »
pCloud all the way.
89
« on: August 08, 2022, 16:04 »
Here is another thread on the topic... https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/as-rejections/msg578887/?topicseen#newAS the new SS But Matt says this is not true so it must be true. Just because there are now 2 threads on the same nuisance rejections does not mean it's true. But it is true. Between the disambiguation process at IS, the roulette wheel of acceptance as SS and now AS this business for the dimes it offers is getting incredibly exhausting.
90
« on: August 05, 2022, 17:19 »
Is Stock Photography Dead?
No it's not even close to dead. There will always be a huge demand for imagery.
The clear winners are the agencies. They will do fine. So in this case stock photography is not dead or even close to dead.
The contributors on the other hand are the losers and will be continually so going forward. The rates that all the agencies pay is disgraceful and seriously not sustainable in a professional capacity, simply put it is not a growth business and has no sustainable future. Sure there are a very few making a full time living from shooting stock and even those numbers are dwindling.
I am so so so glad I am at the end of my career in stock photography. It has been very good to me but I look at the industry for what it is today and it is a complete disgrace where the agencies consider the contributors to be nothing more than a financial liability.
91
« on: August 05, 2022, 12:32 »
My acceptance rate has been 95-100% for many years, now this week 80% is rejected for 'quality problems'.
This is not a 'quality' issue.
Yup. Same Same. AS the new SS.
92
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:23 »
AS the new SS
93
« on: August 03, 2022, 11:20 »
94
« on: July 28, 2022, 14:49 »
Formerly a hostage of Adobe Premiere and their insane monthly fees. Switched over to Da Vinci and would never go back.
95
« on: July 23, 2022, 16:16 »
I think yesterday is always the best time to upload.
Exactly. As the old saying goes... The best time to plant an oak tree is twenty years ago.
97
« on: July 15, 2022, 10:01 »
I can't judge at all how buyers behave in general.
But since my office buys pictures, I can at least say something about it from my personal point of view.
We had one customer account with Shutterstock and one with Adobe Stock. Today we only have the one at AS. We cancelled the one at Shutterstock 3 years ago.
Why?
Well, it's mostly because of the search results.
If you have to make ads in a certain region for the target group in that region with products typical for that region, it is important to be able to find images that fit that target group.
Two examples:
Search term "house"
If I search for images of houses on shutterstock, I get a lot of images that do not show any houses in Germany/middle Europe at first glance. It doesn't matter whether I choose the German or the English language for the search. The results are almost identical. So I have to search much longer at shutterstock to find the right images for my region.
If I search for pictures of houses at AS, I can set the search region. If I search for houses in German, I get very specific houses that fit here. If I change the search to USA, I get mostly houses that look American. Here the search is clearly better.
Search term "family"
Here the same problem arises as with the search term "house". With shutterstock I get a lot of images that just don't fit my region. Here, too, the search results at AS are clearly better adapted to my search region.
From my point of view, the algorithm at AS is much better than that of shutterstock. In addition, from my point of view, shutterstock is more internationally oriented, while AS is more at home in the European market. However, I cannot judge at all how the search results look like in other countries. And of course I have no idea if other customers see this problem as well and therefore change the agency.
Perhaps learn how to use a search bar on any agency. "house' overall does yield houses in America, at least from where I am sitting. "house germany" yields nothing but houses in Germany. Common sense.
98
« on: July 14, 2022, 18:13 »
[/quote]
Overall I tend to agree more with Cobalt above. Or at the very least, a certain type of customer certainly do.
[/quote]
Cobalt is more often than not clueless about a buyers point of view. If one continually follows this "community" nonsense then yes the buyers keep moving to where the "best content" is.
Cascoly is perhaps more accurate in stating...
1. no evidence this is true - and buyers w subscriptions are unlikely to switch
2. how does one determine which site has 'best content'
Pick any topic of your choosing and IS, GI, SS, and AD will give you pretty much the same content. If you are an editorial buyer you'd most likely run to AL, IS, GI, and SS, and once again get pretty much the same content. If you really want cool, hip, trendy content that ages very quickly you'd go to Stocksy, and again you could find incredibly similar imagery at the other sites for a fraction of the price, albeit they might not be image exclusive.
Long gone are the days where agencies lock you into a contract that ensures they have the best content. Long gone are the days where any photographer in his/her right mind would be exclusive to any agency and this in my view includes image exclusive. Long gone are the days where there is any loyalty from any agency or contributor. Very very very few of us produce content that is the "best content".
99
« on: July 14, 2022, 10:33 »
In the beginning almost every entry level photographer was making 4-6K with 3000 images. Many of them would not have met the skill level required to pass the brutal editing imposed for acceptance of images at the time, thus microstock with no editing criteria and ridiculously low pricing for unlimited use brought us to where we are today. ten cents on the dollar and the same goes with video.
Photos and video today are a mass produced commodity. Top quality today gets rejected in the roulette wheel of 'approved' and total junk gets 'approved' on the same roulette wheel that should reject the content. It's a complete crap shoot.
There is an old saying "water seeks it's own level" and the industry as a whole and the masters who control it have found that level. Let's be real, contributors are in an era where we accept 0.10c royalties from corporate agencies, we sell our content for $5 to corporate agencies for unlimited free downloads under the guise that it will lead to more downloads when in fact it is for their marketing needs, not yours.
100
« on: July 12, 2022, 20:58 »
Respectfully, investing in gear is not worth it today. For example, I went to do a shoot for two days in a town near me, I know there is demand for content. My gas bill alone for two days in a campervan was $120. This does not include my time for photography X2 days or post production, metadata etc X2-3 hours. Even assuming a RPD of 0.50c that requires 240 downloads just to break even on gas alone. Food for thought.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
